D.B. and J.R.B. v. K.B., L.B., Jr., C.T.H., and the Calhoun County Department of Human Resources

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 1/21/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090831 D.B. and J.R.B. v. K.B., L.B., J r . , C.T.H., and the Calhoun County Department of Human Resources Appeal from Calhoun J u v e n i l e Court (JU-09-606.01 and JU-06-43.02) BRYAN, J u d g e . On November Human Resources 17, 2009, t h e C a l h o u n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f ("DHR") filed a petition i n t h e Calhoun J u v e n i l e C o u r t ( " t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t " ) a l l e g i n g t h a t C.J.H. a n d 2090831 S.H. ( c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o h e r e i n a f t e r as " t h e c h i l d r e n " ) were d e p e n d e n t b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n o t have a p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n able DHR to provide further for their alleged that T.H., ("the f a t h e r " ) , had k i l l e d ("the mother"), suicide. DHR custody support, also filed the father W.H., and t h a t the father a motion had then committed f o r ex parte temporary motion was maternal aunt"), K.B., t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a n d L.B., ("the maternal aunt ("the p a t e r n a l uncle"); i n DHR's and D.B., aunt"), filed dependency t h a t DHR h a d p l a c e d a u n t ("the the children's separate The uncle paternal petitions to brother, the and t h e p a t e r n a l aunt The p a t e r n a l a u n t a l l e g e d the c h i l d r e n i n her custody s h o r t l y a f t e r the deaths o f t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r . f o r c u s t o d y was l a t e r husband, of the c h i l d r e n maternal action. a l l sought custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n . aunt's by t h e J r . , the children's maternal m a t e r n a l aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e , petition granted t h e same d a y . brother"); intervene education. of the children S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , C.T.H., t h e b r o t h e r ("the or t h e mother o f t h e c h i l d r e n of the c h i l d r e n ; that j u v e n i l e court training, J.R.B. aunt's amended t o a d d t h e p a t e r n a l ("the 2 The p a t e r n a l paternal uncle"), as a 2090831 petitioner. perform j u v e n i l e court a home s t u d y maternal and The a u n t and the p a t e r n a l On of the subsequently residences the maternal uncle, 3, finding the c h i l d r e n dependent. custody of brother "liberal" the maternal with the holidays 2010, the juvenile c h i l d r e n to the visitation a u n t and children, in and the DHR to brother, the the p a t e r n a l aunt uncle. May the of ordered The entered with including: 4 the days 1 aunt, awarded 1 specific during week order awarded c h i l d r e n , and uncle years; an j u v e n i l e court paternal the maternal even-numbered court the awarded visitation Thanksgiving during Christmas h o l i d a y s ; 3 c o n s e c u t i v e weeks d u r i n g t h e summer; e v e r y weekend t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n have t h e f o l l o w i n g Monday o f f o f s c h o o l ; any time the maternal Anniston for two paternal a u n t 48 court t h a t "DHR and hours DHR notice the maternal uncle days, consecutive a l s o ordered months f r o m t h e aunt provided they of the "to supervise visit. The counseling and give a l l other in the juvenile f o r a p e r i o d of d a t e o f e n t r y o f t h i s [ o ] r d e r , " and s h a l l provide were and ... 12 i t held services as The j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o r d e r a w a r d e d c u s t o d y s o l e l y t o t h e p a t e r n a l aunt; the j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d not mention the p a t e r n a l u n c l e i n i t s c u s t o d y award. 1 3 2090831 may be necessary." The r e q u i r e d the p a t e r n a l juvenile aunt court, in i t s judgment, to "keep the child[ren] in the school of [her] choosing, but because th[e] child[ren are] a c c u s t o m e d t o g o i n g t o a p u b l i c s c h o o l and being involved i n both classes with other non-related children and in public school related extracurricular activities, the [paternal aunt] s h a l l n o t home s c h o o l t h [ e ] c h i l d [ r e n ] f o r a minimum o f one f u l l school year i n order to provide the c h i l d [ r e n ] w i t h as much n o r m a l c y as p o s s i b l e , due t o the t u r m o i l the c h i l d [ r e n ] ha[ve] endured." The paternal aunt s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d amend, o r vacate the Civ. In motion, P. 2 her judgment p u r s u a n t the paternal a motion to to Rule aunt 59, alter, Ala. argued that R. the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment r e q u i r e d her t o keep the c h i l d r e n i n public school p r o v i s i o n was guardian's the ... for year, and she custodial right to d i r e c t the i n the upbringing The motion. judgment t h a t arrangement unconstitutional the l i f e argued that such a " u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as i t t a k e s away t h e c u s t o d i a l c h i l d r e n under her c o n t r o l . " provision 2 one as for She one i t places uncle did year 4 join to supervise was undue s t a t e not education a l s o argued t h a t o r d e r e d DHR of a f i t c u s t o d i a l guardian." paternal and the the "invalid and interference into Finally, in for the the paternal postjudgment 2090831 aunt argued t h a t the v i s i t a t i o n award t o the m a t e r n a l aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e was invalid and the not maternal uncle with the by aunt the and visitation aunt requested c h i l d r e n , because there visitation denied had because the maternal aunt an a u n t and maternal rights with i s no an u n c l e , uncle the an and lacked award o f law that allows because the standing children. visitation The and the paternal uncle timely maternal to assert juvenile t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . The appealed; for court paternal because the j u v e n i l e c o u r t awarded c u s t o d y s o l e l y t o the p a t e r n a l aunt, will address the paternal On aunt. the p a t e r n a l aunt r a i s e s three i s s u e s f o r review, w h i c h she p r o v i s i o n i n the keep the ordered DHR f r a m e s as judgment t h a t , she children unconstitutional; that a r g u m e n t s as t h e y r e l a t e t o the 3 appeal, court's appellant's we (2) in public whether the to supervise the this f o l l o w s : (1) w h e t h e r the a l l e g e s , r e q u i r e s her to school for one p r o v i s i o n i n the year is judgment c u s t o d i a l arrangement for T h e p a t e r n a l u n c l e i s l i s t e d as an a p p e l l a n t . However, as n o t e d e a r l i e r , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t d i d n o t a w a r d c u s t o d y t o t h e p a t e r n a l u n c l e . See s u p r a n o t e 1. We do n o t a d d r e s s w h e t h e r t h e p a t e r n a l u n c l e has s t a n d i n g t o a p p e a l . 3 5 2090831 one y e a r i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ; and ( 3 ) w h e t h e r t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e j u d g m e n t a l l o w i n g t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n was error. R e g a r d i n g t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t ' s f i r s t argument -juvenile court's requires y e a r -in her we fact, judgment to keep the p u b l i c school the f o r one juvenile court's paternal year. t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t may her c h o o s i n g but children the had paternal year. At the unconstitutional children in public note t h a t the require is The the because i t for one j u d g m e n t does not, children judgment s p e c i f i c a l l y in states p l a c e the c h i l d r e n i n the s c h o o l experienced since trial that school aunt to keep the t h a t , because of aunt c o u l d uncle not the the of emotional turmoil deaths of homeschool the their the parents, children for i n t h i s matter, the p a t e r n a l aunt one stated t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were e x c e l l i n g i n p u b l i c s c h o o l and t h a t she d i d not i n t e n d to homeschool the did testify that private school. prohibits she the private school. would like Nothing paternal to in the aunt Accordingly, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s children. enroll However, she the juvenile from e n r o l l i n g children court's the in a judgment children in b e c a u s e t h e r e i s no p r o v i s i o n i n judgment t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e p a t e r n a l 6 aunt 2090831 to keep the paternal children aunt's in public argument school that for such u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s not p r o p e r l y b e f o r e Next, the paternal this year, the provision a aunt argues t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t t h a t DHR one is court. the requirement supervise in the c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t f o r one y e a r i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e i t p l a c e s undue state guardian. interference into the life of a f i t custodial I n s u p p o r t of her argument, the p a t e r n a l aunt c i t e s s e v e r a l g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s o f law f r o m U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court opinions s u c h as T r o x e l v. G r a n v i l l e , 530 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( " [ T ] h e Due infringe rearing on the fundamental decisions 'better' simply decision M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 321 us that first include supply P r o c e s s C l a u s e does n o t the in custody, the 158, care parents, preparation nor because could U.S. for hinder."). right of a (1944) nurture primary obligations paternal and t h a t , i n the child believes Prince of the a v. function the state aunt child reside and freedom can neither argues that the a f i t custodian a b s e n c e o f e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t she 7 to ("It i s c a r d i n a l w i t h e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d t h a t she was and 72-73 t o make judge made."), whose The state 166 57, permit a State parents be and U.S. was 2090831 unfit, the j u v e n i l e c o u r t v i o l a t e d her by r e q u i r i n g DHR to maintain constitutional rights a s u p e r v i s o r y r o l e i n the However, t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t has not case. c l e a r l y set forth the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t h a t she a l l e g e d l y possesses t h a t would prohibit a in requiring DHR after juvenile the to court maintain disposition a of a dependency supervisory the custody action role of for the from one year children. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t has f a i l e d t o a p p l y t h e general p r o p o s i t i o n s o f l a w c i t e d i n h e r b r i e f i n a manner t h a t w o u l d demonstrate that the constitutional rights. Alabaster, 901 So. supporting only 2d juvenile See court violated Beachcroft Props., LLP 703, 'general 708 (Ala. propositions v. C i t y 2004) of App. 406 1995) So. law' does 2d 988 ( A l a . C i v . App. on appeal, d e m o n s t r a t e d by part of So. 2d 837, 838 the the 1981)) for this that court error record."). juvenile court's 8 Elliott Williams, ("This c o u r t does to consider must be Accordingly, judgment not (Ala. Civ. ( c i t i n g L i b e r t y Loan C o r p . o f Gadsden v. presume e r r o r . I n o r d e r asserted 656 that of ("Authority c o n s t i t u t e a s u f f i c i e n t argument f o r r e v e r s a l . " ) ; and v. Bud's T r u c k & A u t o R e p a i r , her an not error affirmatively we affirm ordered DHR that to 2090831 s u p e r v i s e t h e c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t f o r one y e a r f o l l o w i n g t h e e n t r y of the judgment. 4 We n o t e t h a t none o f t h e c a s e s r e l i e d on by Judge Moore i n h i s d i s s e n t as t o t h i s i s s u e , i n w h i c h he a s s e r t s t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d as t o t h i s i s s u e , a r e c i t e d by t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t i n h e r b r i e f t o t h i s court. Our c a s e l a w c r e a t e s no e x c e p t i o n for addressing c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a r g u m e n t s t h a t a r e s u p p o r t e d o n l y by g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s o f l a w . See L i m b a u g h v. L i m b a u g h , 574 So. 2d 804, 805 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990) ( a f f i r m i n g judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t when t h e h u s b a n d ' s g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s o f l a w c i t e d r e g a r d i n g due p r o c e s s and c i v i l r i g h t s were " n o t c i t e d i n s u c h a way as t o s u p p o r t t h e h u s b a n d ' s c o n t e n t i o n o f e r r o r on appeal"). R e v e r s i n g t h e judgment o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t b a s e d on a r g u m e n t s t h a t a r e n o t c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l u n f a i r l y p e n a l i z e s t h e a p p e l l e e s by d e n y i n g them an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e s p o n d t o t h o s e a r g u m e n t s . Although none o f t h e a p p e l l e e s f i l e d an a p p e l l a t e b r i e f w i t h t h i s c o u r t , we c a n n o t assume t h a t t h e y w o u l d n o t have done so had the p a t e r n a l aunt p r o p e r l y argued the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s r a i s e d i n her b r i e f . 4 F u r t h e r m o r e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r DHR t o s u p e r v i s e t h e c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t f o r one y e a r u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Because of the contentious nature of these p r o c e e d i n g s , w h i c h was a d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h e manner o f t h e m o t h e r ' s d e a t h , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be s e r v e d by a l l o w i n g DHR to maintain a supervisory role of the custodial a r r a n g e m e n t f o r a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d . See S.P. v. E.T., 957 So. 2d 1127, 1133 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( d i s c u s s i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e c u s t o d y - m o d i f i c a t i o n s t a n d a r d i n o n g o i n g d e p e n d e n c y c a s e s and s t a t i n g t h a t " i t i s n o t uncommon f o r a j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o r e q u i r e t h a t DHR r e m a i n i n v o l v e d i n a c a s e f o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s and at various levels after the entry of a 'final' d i s p o s i t i o n a l o r d e r " i n order t o f u r t h e r the best i n t e r e s t of a dependent c h i l d ) . 9 2090831 Finally, court's the paternal award of v i s i t a t i o n maternal uncle aunt argues t o the maternal i s e r r o r f o rseveral reasons: m a t e r n a l aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e with that the juvenile aunt (1) b e c a u s e t h e d i d n o t seek t h e c h i l d r e n as a f o r m o f a l t e r n a t e r e l i e f ; there i s no s t a t u t o r y b a s i s aunt and u n c l e ; uncle lacked to petition for visitation m a t e r n a l aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n . regarding (2) b e c a u s e t o an (3) b e c a u s e t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d t h e m a t e r n a l standing Regarding visitation f o r an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n c h i l d r e n ; a n d (4) b e c a u s e t h e amount o f v i s i t a t i o n the and the the paternal with the awarded t o i s contrary t o the 5 aunt's first assertion of error t h e award o f v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and t h e maternal uncle, the paternal a u n t ' s a r g u m e n t c o n s i s t s o f two sentences t h a t s t a t e t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l We r e j e c t a n y a s s e r t i o n made by Judge Moore i n h i s d i s s e n t as t o t h i s i s s u e t h a t t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t s e t f o r t h an argument i n h e r b r i e f t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s v i o l a t e her c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o d e c i d e v i s i t a t i o n m a t t e r s f o r t h e children. No s u c h a s s e r t i o n i s made b y t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l . We c a n o n l y assume t h a t he c o n s i d e r s two q u o t a t i o n s t a k e n f r o m T r o x e l v. G r a n v i l l e , 530 U.S. a t 72-73 and 78, with no argument whatsoever regarding the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n , as an " a r g u m e n t " s u f f i c i e n t t o merit our c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 5 10 2090831 u n c l e d i d not f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r v i s i t a t i o n and t h a t t h e y d i d not ask f o r v i s i t a t i o n d u r i n g the f i n a l h e a r i n g . The aunt support wholly fails to cite any authority argument t h a t the award of v i s i t a t i o n those Accordingly, grounds. a r g u m e n t . See should will R u l e 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. Whittington Real App. (when 2009) we E s t a t e , LLC, the a u t h o r i t y to support 16 appellant a particular So. 3d address P.; and 802, 809 to cite failed her reversed on that Watson v. (Ala. Civ. any legal i s s u e r a i s e d on a p p e a l , this no g r o u n d upon w h i c h reverse the t r i a l We c o n s i d e r t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t ' s argument t h a t will court's be not App. c o u r t h e l d t h a t the " i s s u e present[ed] may to paternal we judgment"). i s no l a w t h a t a l l o w s t h e m a t e r n a l there a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l uncle to seek v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n w i t h the p a t e r n a l aunt's argument t h a t the m a t e r n a l standing to p e t i t i o n a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l for visitation with the uncle lacked children. a g r e e t h a t t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e has n o t p r o v i d e d a u n t s uncles niece this a or statutory right to nephew i n a t y p i c a l an award custody of visitation proceeding. c a s e stems f r o m a d e p e n d e n c y p r o c e e d i n g , 11 not with We and a However, a custody 2090831 proceeding. I n J.S.M. v. P . J . , 902 6 So. 2d 89 (Ala. Civ. App. 2 0 0 4 ) , t h i s c o u r t u p h e l d an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n t o a n o n p a r e n t who had child, based Ala. filed a dependency p e t i t i o n without specifically i n part Code on 1975, adjudicating the a child seeking a u t h o r i t y of which authorized t o be seeking an award of former a custody § of visitation, 12-15-71(a)(4), juvenile court, dependent, to the "[m]ake any after other o r d e r as t h e c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e and 71(a)(4) ("the best was AJJA"), i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . " repealed § by the 12-15-101 Alabama et seq., Although Juvenile Ala. renumbered i n the AJJA a t § 12-15-314(a)(4), effective January 1, 2009, see Act No. § 12-15- Justice Act 1975, and Code A l a . Code 2008-277, A l a . 1975, Acts 2008, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) i s n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l t o f o r m e r § 12-1571(a)(4). after See § 12-15-314(a)(4) adjudicating a child (allowing a juvenile court, dependent, to "[m]ake any other o r d e r as t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be A l t h o u g h a d i s p o s i t i o n a l c u s t o d y a w a r d was e n t e r e d , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t had a u t h o r i t y t o e n t e r t h e c u s t o d y a w a r d o n l y b e c a u s e i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t . See § 12-15-310, A l a . Code 1975 ( i f a j u v e n i l e court finds that a dependency p e t i t i o n has not b e e n p r o v e n by clear and convincing evidence, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t must d i s m i s s the petition). 6 12 2090831 f o r t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d " ) . this was c o u r t h e l d t h a t an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e a f t e r t h e c h i l d was the [juvenile] court c h i l d ' s best conclude determined interests." that, pursuant 902 to So. § s u c h an 2d at uncle visitation children d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s u c h an a w a r d was nonparent a w a r d t o be 95. the we the juvenile the maternal a u n t and i f the in Accordingly, 12-15-314(a)(4), c o u l d have a w a r d e d t h e m a t e r n a l the to the a d j u d i c a t e d dependent " i f court with I n J.S.M., juvenile court i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the children. Therefore, we w i l l now c o n s i d e r the p a t e r n a l aunt's argument t h a t the r e c o r d d i d not s u p p o r t an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n u n c l e was The i n the best to the maternal a u n t and that the maternal The maternal i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n . r e c o r d on a p p e a l a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l a determination final r e v e a l s the f o l l o w i n g . u n c l e l i v e i n F l o r a l a , Alabama, which i s approximately f o u r h o u r s f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n ' s home i n A n n i s t o n . The aunt a d m i t t e d maternal knit" and that a l l of her that her sisters, f a m i l y was including a not "close- sister that l i v e d n e a r t h e c h i l d r e n , had " s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s . " The evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e m o t h e r ' s and the father's 13 2090831 deaths, the maternal approximately occasion, aunt 8 years h a d met t h e c h i l d r e n , o l d a n d 10 y e a r s approximately who were o l d , o n l y on 1 p r i o r 3 months b e f o r e t h e mother and t h e father died. The m a t e r n a l u n c l e a d m i t t e d t h a t he d i d n o t meet the until children after t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r d i e d . However, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l maternal u n c l e had been a b l e t o d e v e l o p the c h i l d r e n d u r i n g three v i s i t s aunt and t h e a relationship with a r r a n g e d b y Donna Crow, t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c o u n s e l o r , a n d DHR. I n i t s judgment, t h e j u v e n i l e court aunt found "clearly them. that the maternal love" the children and t h e m a t e r n a l uncle and d e s i r e a r e l a t i o n s h i p That f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . with The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t DHR a p p r o v e d t h e home o f t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d the maternal uncle and t h a t DHR h a d no safety concerns r e g a r d i n g t h e i r home. Crow t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e h a d recommended t h a t between t h e c h i l d r e n uncle be unspecified suspended and t h e m a t e r n a l after their aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l third visit a l l e g a t i o n s made b y t h e c h i l d r e n . aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l uncle t e s t i f i e d visitation based on The m a t e r n a l t h a t they had l e a r n e d t h a t t h e i r v i s i t s w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n h a d been s u s p e n d e d t h e d a y 14 2090831 before trial, and t h e m a t e r n a l uncle stated that he f l a b b e r g a s t e d t h a t t h e i r v i s i t a t i o n had been suspended he t h o u g h t t h e v i s i t s maternal aunt and n e g a t i v e remarks h a d gone e x c e p t i o n a l l y w e l l . the maternal about uncle denied t h e p a t e r n a l aunt d u r i n g was because Both the making any their visits the children could resume with the c h i l d r e n . However, Crow t e s t i f i e d that v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t a n d t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e once the c h i l d r e n f e l t that t h e y were n o t g o i n g t o be t a k e n t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t ' s home. Crow recommended t h a t v i s i t s from begin a t h e r o f f i c e a n d move t o t h e p a t e r n a l a u n t ' s home, where t h e c h i l d r e n c o u l d see t h e p a t e r n a l aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and the maternal uncle being f r i e n d l y the record between indicated that the paternal maternal uncle, t o one a n o t h e r . there aunt the paternal were communication and t h e m a t e r n a l aunt Although testified aunt that issues and t h e s h e h a d no problem w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l aunt o r t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e and t h a t , i f she were a w a r d e d c u s t o d y , she w o u l d "open h e r d o o r s " t o t h e maternal aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l uncle. The m a t e r n a l aunt s t a t e d t h a t , i f she was n o t a w a r d e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , she would like as much v i s i t a t i o n 15 with t h e c h i l d r e n as t h e 2090831 p a t e r n a l aunt would a l l o w . she supported maternal The p a t e r n a l a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c h i l d r e n ' s having aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l a r e l a t i o n s h i p with the uncle. The g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m of t h e c h i l d r e n a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she hoped t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and the children's This maternal uncle could become part of the lives. court's standard of reviewing v i s i t a t i o n a dependency a c t i o n i s w e l l awards i n settled. "In awarding v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e disposition o f a 'dependent c h i l d ' pursuant to [former] § 12-15-71(a)[ r e p e a l e d by t h e AJJA and r e p l a c e d by § 12-15-314(a)] , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s guided by t h e ' b e s t interests of the c h i l d ' s t a n d a r d . See [ f o r m e r ] § 1 2 - 1 5 - 7 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) [ r e p e a l e d b y the AJJA and r e p l a c e d by § 12-15-314(a)(4)] ('If a c h i l d i s f o u n d t o be d e p e n d e n t , t h e c o u r t may make any of the f o l l o w i n g orders of d i s p o s i t i o n to p r o t e c t t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d : ... (4) Make any ... o r d e r as t h e c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n s h a l l deem t o be f o r t h e w e l f a r e a n d b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e child.'). "'"'The determination of proper visitation ... i s within the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h a t court's determination should not be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t a s h o w i n g o f an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e B l a n d , 796 So. 2d 340 (Ala. 2000). '[C]ases i n A l a b a m a have consistently held that the primary consideration i n setting v i s i t a t i o n rights i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and w e l f a r e o f t h e i c h i l d . Furthermore, each c h i l d v i s i t a t i o n c a s e must be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s a n d 16 2090831 c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' F a n n i n g v . F a n n i n g , 504 So. 2d 737, 739 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . 'When t h e i s s u e o f visitation i s determined after oral proceedings, the trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n o r a showing t h a t i t i s p l a i n l y i n e r r o r . Andrews v . A n d r e w s , 520 So. 2 d 512 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . ' D o m i n i c k v . D o m i n i c k , 622 So. 2 d 402, 403 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . " "'K.L.U. v. M.C., 809 So. 2 d 837, 840-41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) "K.L.R. v. L.C.R., 854 So. 2d [124,] 132[ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ] . " K.B. v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 387-88 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . Based that 897 So. 2d 379, on o u r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , the juvenile c o u r t exceeded we c a n n o t i t s discretion conclude by a w a r d i n g the m a t e r n a l aunt and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e children. A l t h o u g h i t was u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n d i d n o t have a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l aunt o r t h e maternal u n c l e b e f o r e t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r juvenile c o u r t c o u l d have c o n c l u d e d , e s p e c i a l l y died, the i n l i g h t of the maternal aunt's testimony t h a t her s i s t e r t h a t l i v e d near the children had s e r i o u s problems, that i t was i n t h e b e s t interests of the children to maintain t i e s 17 to their deceased 2090831 mother's f a m i l y through v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the m a t e r n a l aunt the maternal u n c l e . The paternal and 7 aunt also argues that the amount of v i s i t a t i o n a w a r d e d t o t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e was error because that visitation felt safe. i t was begin c o n t r a r y t o Crow's i n an environment recommendation where t h e children A l t h o u g h the j u v e n i l e c o u r t awarded the maternal a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e c o n s i d e r a b l e v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d r e n , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n c l u d e d i n i t s judgment certain p r o v i s i o n s to p r o t e c t the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n indicate that considered. Crow's recommendations were that adequately F o r e x a m p l e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t Crow b e g i n w o r k i n g w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n t o p r e p a r e them f o r v i s i t a t i o n with the visitation maternal and the maternal uncle and that w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e not t o begin u n t i l Crow. aunt t h e c h i l d r e n were a d e q u a t e l y p r e p a r e d The j u v e n i l e c o u r t a l s o h e l d t h a t t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t was by and I t i s not f o r t h i s c o u r t t o determine whether v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n . The c o u r t i s l i m i t e d t o r e v i e w i n g whether a juvenile court exceeded i t s discretion by d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t an a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n was i n the best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n . See K.B. v. C l e b u r n e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human Res., 897 So. 2d 379, 387-88 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . 7 18 2090831 the maternal recommended uncle that shall they c h i l d r e n began a g a i n . participate do so i n c o u n s e l i n g i f Crow before visitation with the T h e r e f o r e , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n a w a r d e d t o t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and t h e m a t e r n a l u n c l e was c o n t r a r y t o t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n made by Crow. Accordingly, judgment juvenile we conclude c o u r t i s due t o be that the of the affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, Moore, writing. J . , concurs s p e c i a l l y . J . , concurs i n p a r t and 19 dissents i n part, with 2090831 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. A l t h o u g h not n e c e s s a r y to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n f i l e d by D.B. uncle"), raised I in ("the write their p a t e r n a l a u n t " ) and specially brief on to J.R.B. appeal paternal first argument the that ("the the address appeal, of the juvenile court u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y l i m i t e d the p a t e r n a l aunt's r i g h t to d i r e c t the education of h e r e i n a f t e r as The (1923), to and S.H. "the c h i l d r e n " ) . (collectively referred argues t h a t parents paternal their aunt Sisters of (1925), that further the argues, "doctrine a f f o r d e d a fundamental the way citing Jesus of U.S. 390 right they see f i t . The Pierce v. Society of and Mary, parental 268 rights" U.S. 510 applies to custodians. Meyer, Fourteenth in H o l y Names o f the g u a r d i a n s and parents, children are to 8 p a t e r n a l a u n t , c i t i n g Meyer v. N e b r a s k a , 262 educate In C.J.H. the pursuant United to States their Supreme liberty interest held under that the States C o n s t i t u t i o n , have a r i g h t t o c o n t r o l and d i r e c t t h e e d u c a t i o n of t h e i r c h i l d r e n . 262 on U.S. 8 Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d Court at 400-01. S e e n o t e 1 and In Pierce, relying note 3 i n the main 20 i t s holding opinion. in 2090831 Meyer, the United States statute that required having control 16 Supreme was direct school because with 268 U.S. a t 534-35 the "custodial fundamental i t state (emphasis added). guardian" substantive under their B a s e d on t h e aunt argues t h a t she, of the children, due-process "unreasonably and g u a r d i a n s t o and e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n above-emphasized language, the p a t e r n a l as a ,'" 268 U.S. a t of parents the l i b e r t y the upbringing control." that o r charge o r c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d between 8 and unconstitutional interfere[d] held "every parent, guardian, or other person years t o send him 'to a p u b l i c 530, Court right h a s t h e same to control and d i r e c t t h e e d u c a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d r e n as t h e b i o l o g i c a l p a r e n t s of t h e c h i l d r e n . At I disagree. the outset of t h i s a u n t was a n o n p a r e n t w i t h Pursuant t o the j u v e n i l e dependency no l e g a l action, rights court's statutory the paternal to the children. authority t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n a l order regarding custody of the c h i l d r e n t h e y were a d j u d i c a t e d 1975 d e p e n d e n t , s e e § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 4 ( a ) , A l a . Code (setting f o r t h the d i s p o s i t i o n a l orders a juvenile may make a f t e r a c h i l d i s a d j u d i c a t e d court transferred after legal custody 21 court dependent), the j u v e n i l e of the children from the 2090831 C a l h o u n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s t o t h e aunt. In Alabama, j u v e n i l e proceedings t o the Alabama J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e Act § 12-15-101 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. custody" paternal are conducted pursuant ("the The AJJA"), codified AJJA d e f i n e s at "legal as " [ a ] l e g a l s t a t u s c r e a t e d by o r d e r o f t h e juvenile c o u r t which v e s t s i n a l e g a l c u s t o d i a n [ ] the r i g h t t o have p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of a c h i l d under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the j u v e n i l e court pursuant to t h i s c h a p t e r and t h e r i g h t and d u t y t o p r o t e c t , t r a i n , and d i s c i p l i n e t h e c h i l d and t o p r o v i d e t h e c h i l d w i t h f o o d , s h e l t e r , c l o t h i n g , e d u c a t i o n , and m e d i c a l c a r e , a l l s u b j e c t t o t h e p o w e r s , r i g h t s , d u t i e s , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the l e g a l guardian of the person o f t h e c h i l d and s u b j e c t t o any r e s i d u a l p a r e n t a l rights and responsibilities. A parent, person, agency, or department g r a n t e d l e g a l custody shall e x e r c i s e t h e r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s p e r s o n a l l y , u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e r e s t r i c t e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . " 9 § 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 0 2 ( 1 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975 Thus, the AJJA explicitly (emphasis added). states that the rights and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f a l e g a l c u s t o d i a n may be r e s t r i c t e d by the juvenile the o n l y r i g h t s the 9 Ala. court. Regarding the The AJJA d e f i n e s Code 1975, as "legal children, custodian" in § 12-15-102(15), " [ a ] p a r e n t , p e r s o n , a g e n c y , o r d e p a r t m e n t t o whom l e g a l custody of a c h i l d under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o t h i s c h a p t e r has been a w a r d e d by o r d e r o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t or other c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n . " 22 2090831 paternal aunt obtained juvenile court's were given t o her pursuant to the s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o make a d i s p o s i t i o n a l o r d e r a f t e r a f i n d i n g o f dependency; i n d o i n g so, t h e j u v e n i l e court to l i m i t e d the p a t e r n a l aunt's r i g h t t o provide t h e c h i l d r e n by l i m i t i n g education the paternal aunt's education choice of f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n a manner t h a t w o u l d , as s t a t e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n i t s j u d g m e n t , " p r o v i d e t h e c h i l d [ r e n ] with as much n o r m a l c y child[ren] The ha[ve] paternal as p o s s i b l e , due t o t h e t u r m o i l t h e endured." aunt, i n her b r i e f on addressed the f a c t that the j u v e n i l e court appeal, had a u t h o r i t y t o c o n f e r r e s t r i c t e d r i g h t s t o h e r as a l e g a l c u s t o d i a n , has n o t o t h e r w i s e of the AJJA. has n o t a n d she c h a l l e n g e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f any p a r t I n s h o r t , t h e p a t e r n a l aunt has p r e s e n t e d c o u r t w i t h no a u t h o r i t y t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t h e r argument she, this that as a l e g a l c u s t o d i a n w i t h l i m i t e d r i g h t s c o n f e r r e d by t h e juvenile court, constitutional has right the same inherent, as a b i o l o g i c a l to d i r e c t the education of the c h i l d r e n . presented by t h e p a t e r n a l aunt, I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h a t p a r t o f the juvenile court's Therefore, parent fundamental judgment 23 that b a s e d on t h e a r g u m e n t temporarily l i m i t e d the 2090831 p a t e r n a l aunt's choice of education violate f o r the c h i l d r e n the p a t e r n a l aunt's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 24 rights. d i d not 2090831 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g D.B. aunt and J.R.B. and uncle i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t . ("the c u s t o d i a n s " ) , o f S.H. and C.J.H. ("the f r o m t h e May 3, 2010, judgment e n t e r e d Court ("the First, juvenile the court") custodians are the p a t e r n a l c h i l d r e n " ) , appeal by t h e C a l h o u n three argue unconstitutionally requires public school. on who separate that Department custodians argue of that K.B. and L.B., with judgment the c h i l d r e n i n argue t h a t the u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y s u b j e c t s them t o m o n i t o r i n g County grounds. the them t o m a i n t a i n Second, t h e c u s t o d i a n s Juvenile Human R e s o u r c e s by t h e C a l h o u n ("DHR"). the j u v e n i l e court judgment erred J r . ("the m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e " ) , Third, the i n awarding the c h i l d r e n . I agree w i t h t h e main m i s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e judgment children. The judgment opinion i n regard are precluded year. The continue issue to the education does not the of t h e i r from homeschooling judgment the custodians s p e c i f i e s that e n r o l l t h e c h i l d r e n i n any s c h o o l they that a j u v e n i l e court 25 of the may choosing but that the c h i l d r e n require have custodians the f o r one custodians to e n r o l l the c h i l d r e n i n p u b l i c school. whether visitation to Hence, t h e can c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n c l u d e 2090831 such a l i m i t a t i o n i n a judgment a w a r d i n g a r e l a t i v e c u s t o d y of a dependent fully child concur with constitutional e x p r e s s any legal i s not before the issue decision r a i s e d by opinion this the regarding not Therefore, to in the and correctness Judge I address custodians, the espoused principles court. not of I do any Bryan's of the special concurrence. I disagree custodians' custodians right with f i t parents, family; right which is opinion's treatment of the court, In t h e i r b r i e f t o t h i s f r e e o f undue s t a t e r e q u i r i n g DHR decisions main the a r g u e t h a t A m e r i c a n f a m i l i e s have a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l their that the second i s s u e . t o be they are with the and s t a t e has that to supervise by the the to state oversight. by no b a s i s provision for in t h e i r f a m i l y f o r one subjecting supported interference; that, appropriate opinion, interfering the judgment year v i o l a t e s custodians' I n my because child-rearing that caselaw argument, citations, 1 0 T h e m a i n o p i n i o n c r i t i c i z e s t h i s w r i t i n g f o r r e l y i n g on c a s e s n o t c i t e d by t h e c u s t o d i a n s i n t h e i r b r i e f ; h o w e v e r , an appellate court addresses legal arguments, not legal citations. The custodians a r g u e d t h a t , as a m a t t e r of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w , t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o be f r e e o f DHR's s u p e r v i s i o n a b s e n t p r o o f t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d o t h e r w i s e be s u b j e c t e d t o harm. That t h i s w r i t e r c i t e d d i f f e r e n t cases 10 26 2090831 sufficiently that advises t h a t we s h o u l d has court of the error committed so address i t . Furthermore, custodians' of the nature allege the j u v e n i l e court the custodians this I agree argument. recognized with every premise of The Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d that a relative, who assumes an the States i n loco p a r e n t i s r o l e due t o t h e d e a t h o r a b s e n c e o f a c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l parent, has a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t interference with City of East interference that Cleveland, with a t o be f r e e f r o m undue s t a t e familial Ohio, family relationship. 431 U.S. may be 494 See Moore v . (1977). justified State i n order to p r o t e c t a c h i l d f r o m harm, s e e E.H.G. v. E.R.G., [Ms. 2071061, March but, 12, 2010] So. 3 d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , i n t h e absence o f such a c o m p e l l i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n , the s t a t e h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o o v e r s e e t h e c h i l d - r e a r i n g d e c i s i o n s of a f i t c u s t o d i a n . I d . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t , b y p l a c i n g t h e t h a n t h o s e c i t e d b y t h e c u s t o d i a n s does n o t i n a n y way a l t e r t h a t argument. The a p p e l l e e s were f u l l y a p p r i s e d o f t h e i s s u e , b o t h t h r o u g h t h e p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f i l e d b y D.B. i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t as w e l l as t h r o u g h t h e c u s t o d i a n s ' b r i e f f i l e d i n t h i s c o u r t . I cannot agree t h a t , had t h e c u s t o d i a n s c i t e d Moore v . C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d , O h i o , 431 U.S. 494 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , a n d E.H.G. v . E.R.G., [Ms. 2071061, M a r c h 12, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) , t h e a p p e l l e e s w o u l d have r e s p o n d e d any d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n t h e y d i d . 27 2090831 children i n the impliedly found able to receive 1975, "permanent" that custody the custodians and care § 12-15-314(a)(3)c. of were the fit, f o r the c h i l d r e n . willing, See A l a . Code evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n have b e e n , o r p r o b a b l y w i l l be, t o harm b y t h e c u s t o d i a n s . c a s e were r e n d e r e d but their their 957 contains and no subjected The r e c o r d custodians, The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s dependent by t h e deaths o f t h e i r parents, d e p e n d e n c y e n d e d once t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t "permanent" c u s t o d y So. 2d 1127, 1131 to the custodians. awarded S.P. v. E.T., ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) d e p e n d e n c y ends when " t h e c h i l d h a s a p r o p e r 1 1 (holding that c u s t o d i a n 'and' P r e v i o u s l y , I have a r g u e d t h a t a c h i l d whose p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s d i e i s n o t d e p e n d e n t when t h e c h i l d r e m a i n s u n d e r t h e p r o p e r c a r e a n d s u p e r v i s i o n o f r e l a t i v e s . See T.T.T. v. R.H., 999 So. 2d 544, 560-61 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (Moore, J . , dissenting). I n t h i s case, a f t e r the deaths of the p a r e n t s , t h e c h i l d r e n were i m m e d i a t e l y p l a c e d w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a n s a n d have r e m a i n e d i n t h e i r p r o p e r c a r e a n d s u p e r v i s i o n e v e r s i n c e . A c c o r d i n g t o my r e a s o n i n g i n T.T.T., t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d n o t have b e e n c o n s i d e r e d d e p e n d e n t . However, s i n c e T.T.T. was d e c i d e d , o u r supreme c o u r t h a s i s s u e d Ex p a r t e L.E.O., [Ms. 1090565, S e p t . 17, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a . 2010), which has r e d e f i n e d d e p e n d e n c y so as t o make d e p e n d e n t any c h i l d who i s not r e c e i v i n g p r o p e r care and s u p e r v i s i o n from t h e p e r s o n s l e g a l l y obligated to provide i t . So, a t l e a s t as t h e s t a t e o f t h e l a w c u r r e n t l y s t a n d s , t h e c h i l d r e n were r e n d e r e d d e p e n d e n t by t h e d e a t h s o f t h e i r p a r e n t s , a n d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o p e r l y accepted the s t i p u l a t i o n of the p a r t i e s that the c h i l d r e n were d e p e n d e n t . 1 1 28 2090831 i s no l o n g e r ' i n need o f care o r s u p e r v i s i o n ' by p e r s o n s than the c u s t o d i a n " ) . other The j u v e n i l e c o u r t c a n n o t s e i z e on t h e c h i l d r e n ' s f o r m e r d e p e n d e n t s t a t u s as g r o u n d s f o r unnecessary state o v e r s i g h t . In short, 1 2 maintaining the j u v e n i l e court I do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e m a i n o p i n i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t DHR's s e r v i c e s a r e n e e d e d i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t t h e children from any c o n t e n t i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e m a t e r n a l and p a t e r n a l s i d e s o f t h e f a m i l y . So. 3d a t n.4. F i r s t , t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t r e v e a l any o n g o i n g t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e two s i d e s of the children's f a m i l i e s that t h r e a t e n s t h e s a f e t y o r w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d r e n . The e v i d e n c e shows o n l y t h a t , i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e d e a t h s o f t h e m o t h e r a n d t h e f a t h e r , some members o f t h e m a t e r n a l s i d e o f the f a m i l y e x h i b i t e d anger toward t h e f a t h e r f o r k i l l i n g t h e m o t h e r . A l t h o u g h , a t t h a t t i m e , some members o f t h e m a t e r n a l f a m i l y s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be b e s t s e r v e d b y being i n t h e i r c u s t o d y , t h e o n l y m a t e r n a l r e l a t i v e s who s u b s e q u e n t l y sought c u s t o d y , t h e m a t e r n a l aunt and u n c l e , d i d so t h r o u g h a p p r o p r i a t e j u d i c i a l means. The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t anyone v i o l a t e d t h e p e n d e n t e l i t e c u s t o d y award e n t e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , w h i c h awarded c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e c u s t o d i a n s , o r t h a t anyone would v i o l a t e t h e f i n a l c u s t o d y judgment. The r e c o r d a l s o c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e o f any d a n g e r o u s i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two s i d e s o f t h e f a m i l y s i n c e t h e c u s t o d i a n s h a d b e e n k e e p i n g the children. Even i f the custody dispute could be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as " c o n t e n t i o u s , " w h i c h c o u l d p r o b a b l y d e s c r i b e p r a c t i c a l l y any c h i l d - c u s t o d y d i s p u t e , i t h a s n o t e l e v a t e d t o the l e v e l t h a t t h e s a f e t y o f t h e c h i l d r e n has been t h r e a t e n e d . Second, s h o u l d any t h r e a t t o t h e c h i l d r e n from f a m i l y t e n s i o n s a r i s e , t h a t t h r e a t c a n be a m e l i o r a t e d t h r o u g h appropriate protection-from-abuse or other orders addressed toward that s p e c i f i c t h r e a t w i t h o u t DHR's i n t e r v e n t i o n . T h i r d , I am unaware o f any a u t h o r i t y t h a t empowers DHR t o p e r f o r m m o n i t o r i n g on a f a m i l y a b s e n t e v i d e n c e o f p a s t harm o r t h e t h r e a t o f i m m i n e n t harm t o t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n o f the c h i l d l a c k s t h e p r o t e c t i v e c a p a c i t y t o prevent. The 1 2 29 2090831 had no r a t i o n a l ordering DHR subjecting basis, to the much supervise family to less the such a compelling family, and supervision reason, for i t s judgment v i o l a t e s the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of the custodians. As that, to the custodians' during the t r i a l , third argument, the record shows the p a r t i e s r a i s e d the issue of the visitation rights of the maternal objection, s o I do n o t b e l i e v e addressing t h a t i s s u e i n i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t was n o t p r o p e r l y p l e a d e d . a l s o agree t h a t t h i s court, aunt and u n c l e the j u v e n i l e court without erred i n See R u l e 15, A l a . R. C i v . P. I i n J.S.M. v . P . J . , 902 So. 2d 89 r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n s cannot a c t t o a d e q u a t e l y and l a w f u l l y p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d r e n . The main o p i n i o n creates a dangerous p r e c e d e n t by r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t a j u v e n i l e c o u r t c a n o r d e r a f a m i l y t o be m o n i t o r e d b y DHR s o l e l y b e c a u s e two s i d e s o f t h e f a m i l y may not g e t a l o n g . Family tension i s simply not a s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l ground t o j u s t i f y s t a t e o v e r s i g h t over c h i l d r e n . I f t h i s order i s allowed, a j u v e n i l e court concerned f o r the s a f e t y o f any c h i l d f o r a n y h y p o t h e t i c a l o r t e n u o u s r e a s o n c o u l d , p r e s u m a b l y , r e q u i r e c o n s t a n t m o n i t o r i n g o f any f a m i l y . A r g u a b l y , a l l c h i l d r e n a r e j e o p a r d i z e d b y some remote t h r e a t of harm t h a t constant state monitoring could prevent. However, o u r c o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h p r i z e s t h e s a n c t i t y a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e f a m i l y , does n o t a l l o w s u c h undue s t a t e interference. I f e a r t h e m a i n o p i n i o n may be u s e d as l e g a l authority to allow even further unwarranted and u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u d i c i a l and e x e c u t i v e i n t r u s i o n i n t o f a m i l y affairs. 30 2090831 (Ala. C i v . App. 15-71(a)(4), 2004), construed as authorizing f o r m e r A l a . Code 1975, a juvenile court § to award v i s i t a t i o n t o a n o n p a r e n t when s u c h v i s i t a t i o n i s i n t h e interests of a J.S.M. a p p l i e s 314(a)(4), dependent equally which child, to current is similarly above, I cannot agree t h a t dependent t h a t the find c h i l d r e n , and, j u v e n i l e court the had nonrelative fulfilled childhood. § However, as children in this i f t h e y were, continue as his d i d not the case out remain agree evidence before i t to uncle c h i l d a t i s s u e had " m o t h e r , " and served for the The lived with child referred i t appears t h a t child she his f a t h e r i n J.S.M. removed t h e c h i l d from home, t h e nonrelative filed a dependency t h e c h i l d t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w a n t e d t o nonrelative b e l i e v e the set throughout At the t r i a l , t o see 12-15- I cannot 4 months o l d . role A f t e r the in children. 14-year-old that nonrelative's petition. he reasoning Code 1975, Ala. sufficient t h e n o n r e l a t i v e s i n c e he was to the best the t h a t v i s i t a t i o n w i t h t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and I n J.S.M., t h e the that worded. even the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the had and 12- as much as p o s s i b l e and that f a t h e r w o u l d v o l u n t a r i l y a l l o w him to i n t e r a c t w i t h t h e n o n r e l a t i v e , so he had b e e n s n e a k i n g o u t of 31 2090831 the f a t h e r ' s home t o c o n t a c t circumstances, the best the juvenile interests of c o u r t found the v i s i t a t i o n w i t h the person the c h i l d the nonrelative. child Under those t h a t i t w o u l d be i n to have court-ordered who h a d s t o o d i n l o c o p a r e n t i s t o f o r much o f t h e l i f e of the c h i l d . I n t h i s c a s e , on t h e o t h e r hand, b e f o r e t h e d e a t h s o f t h e p a r e n t s , t h e c h i l d r e n , who were ages 10 a n d 8 a t t h e t i m e , h a d seen their maternal aunt only for a brief the maternal uncle. The and they maternal a u n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t she h a d n o t e n j o y e d a c l o s e - k n i t with met or twice period, relationship had never once the maternal f a m i l y f o r many y e a r s . children's older brother t e s t i f i e d that the maternal u n c l e sometimes v i s i t e d the c h i l d r e n ' s maternal The aunt and grandmother, who l i v e d n e a r b y , b u t t h a t t h e y h a d n e v e r come b y t h e home o f the parents t o see t h e c h i l d r e n . parents, the maternal o f f e r themselves After the death of the aunt and u n c l e d e c i d e d t h a t they would as p o t e n t i a l c u s t o d i a n s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , so t h e y were a l l o w e d t o v i s i t w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n i n o r d e r t o f o r g e a relationship children's with counselor, them. After responding the c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e v i s i t the t h i r d visit, the t o i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by h a d d i s t r e s s e d them, recommended 32 2090831 that the v i s i t a t i o n aunt and u n c l e , cease. By t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , who d e n i e d any w r o n g d o i n g , h a d n o t s e e n t h e children since that t h i r d It uncle visit. i s c l e a r from the r e c o r d have no p a s t that the maternal not have interests of Likewise, determined the aunt and r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c h i l d r e n s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e n o n r e l a t i v e i n J.S.M. could the maternal that children Thus, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i t would to preserve b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e be that i n the record, i n the best relationship. the j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d n o t have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t w o u l d be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o f o r g e a new r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e maternal aunt and u n c l e t h r o u g h v i s i t a t i o n . The r e c o r d simply c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e as t o any b e n e f i t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d g a i n from such v i s i t a t i o n . children would maternal side visitation. indicating 1 3 The m a i n o p i n i o n h y p o t h e s i z e s benefit of their I note that such maintaining family that through the record contact The j u v e n i l e c o u r t awarding the v i s i t a t i o n . 13 by would d i d not 33 contact the contains that the with the court-ordered no evidence n e c e s s a r i l y b e n e f i t the state i t s reasons for 2090831 children. 1 4 maternal a u n t h e r s e l f , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be better Some e v i d e n c e , o f f not relatives. having Nevertheless, i n c l u d i n g the testimony any contact with some of the maternal e v e n i f i t c o u l d be i n f e r r e d t h a t i t w o u l d be b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e c h i l d r e n t o have some c o n t a c t the maternal relatives who family, live 1 5 the record shows t h a t other closer to the c h i l d r e n could with maternal serve that A j u v e n i l e c o u r t , l i k e any o t h e r c o u r t , w o u l d e x c e e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y a w a r d i n g v i s i t a t i o n t h a t does n o t s e r v e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n . A d e c i s i o n that v i s i t a t i o n serves t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n must be b a s e d on t h e evidence i n the record. On a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w , t h i s c o u r t determines i f the evidence i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n the judgment. I t i s n o t improper f o r t h i s c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e r e c o r d l a c k s any e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a finding that v i s i t a t i o n would serve the best i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d r e n . Thus, b y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t s u p p o r t t h e v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r e n t e r e d by t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n t h i s case, t h e c o u r t w o u l d n o t be u s u r p i n g t h e r o l e o f t h a t c o u r t , as t h e main o p i n i o n s u g g e s t s . So. 3d a t n.7. 14 A s o u r supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n Ex p a r t e D e v i n e , 398 So. 2d 686 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f a c h i l d must be b a s e d on t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s o f e a c h c a s e , a n d g e n e r a l s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s may n o t be u s e d as surrogates f o r that thorough f a c t u a l i n q u i r y . Thus, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w o u l d have h a d t o i n f e r f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h i s s p e c i f i c c a s e t h a t i t w o u l d be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n to maintain contact with t h e i r m a t e r n a l f a m i l y . The j u v e n i l e c o u r t c o u l d n o t have b a s e d i t s d e c i s i o n on any g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e t h a t c o n t a c t w i t h b o t h s i d e s of t h e f a m i l y always serves the best i n t e r e s t s of a c h i l d . 15 34 2090831 purpose. Not t o d i s p a r a g e t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and u n c l e , 1 6 a p p e a r t o be v e r y c o m p a s s i o n a t e people a c t i n g w i t h the best of i n t e n t i o n s t o w a r d t h e v i c t i m s o f an u n e x p e c t e d and tragedy, provisions but i t appears that the visitation i n t e n d e d t o b e n e f i t them, n o t t h e In would her maternal aunt horrendous are children. testimony, the p a t e r n a l a l l o w the and aunt testified that she uncle to v i s i t with the c h i l d r e n i n h e r home a t a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e s and t h a t she would n o t d i s c o u r a g e any r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t uncle and the children. Rather than a u n t and u n c l e 42 d a y s o f v i s i t a t i o n is at least with 21 times the c h i l d r e n the who awarding the maternal out of every year, amount o f v i s i t a t i o n d u r i n g the c h i l d r e n ' s entire and which they enjoyed lives before t h e d e a t h s o f t h e p a r e n t s , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s h o u l d have left visitation to who, presumably, will the discretion of the custodians, a c t i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n i n deciding visitation. See T r o x e l v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). I would r e v e r s e the judgment o f the j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o The main o p i n i o n p o i n t s out t h a t the m a t e r n a l aunt t e s t i f i e d t h a t her s i s t e r s t h a t l i v e d c l o s e to the c h i l d r e n had " s e r i o u s " p r o b l e m s . So. 3d a t . However, no a d v e r s e e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d as t o o t h e r m a t e r n a l r e l a t i v e s , s u c h as t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , who l i v e d n e a r t h e c h i l d r e n . 16 35 2090831 the e x t e n t i t a w a r d e d t h e m a t e r n a l a u n t and beyond those p a r a m e t e r s . uncle v i s i t a t i o n 1 7 F o r t h a t reason, I would not address the custodians' a r g u m e n t , t o t h e e x t e n t made, t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s of the judgment v i o l a t e t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o d e c i d e v i s i t a t i o n matters f o r the c h i l d r e n . B e c a u s e I am not a d d r e s s i n g t h a t i s s u e , I see no n e e d t o r e s p o n d i n d e t a i l t o t h e m a i n o p i n i o n ' s i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t t h e argument f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P. So. 3d a t n.5. S u f f i c e i t t o s a y t h a t r e a s o n a b l e m i n d s c o u l d d i f f e r on t h a t p o i n t and t h a t t h i s c o u r t has i n t h e p a s t e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o c o n s i d e r i s s u e s b a s e d on f a r l e s s c o n t e n t . 1 7 36

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.